Features

Who was Venerable Walpola Rahula?

Published

7 months ago

2025/05/25

Ven. Walpola Rahula Thera

Venerable Walpola Rahula Thero’s 118^th death anniversary fell on the 9^th of May. On the 24^th of May, a commemorative event is being organised by the Walpola Rahula Foundation Trust chaired by his only Monk pupil Venerable Galkande Dhammananda at the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute. It is timely and of significant relevance to today’s societal practices in the name of Buddha and Buddhism, to examine the life and times of Venerable Rahula and his philosophy and approach to Buddhism.

In Venerable Rahula’s seminal work, What the Buddha Taught, he says “The question has often been asked; Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy? It does not matter what you call it. Buddhism remains what it is whatever label you may put on it. The label is immaterial. Even the label ‘Buddhism’ which we give to the teachings of the Buddha is of little importance. The name one gives is inessential. In the same way Truth needs no label: it is neither Buddhist, Christian, Hindu nor Moslem. It is not the monopoly of anybody. Sectarian labels are a hindrance to the independent understanding of Truth, and they produce harmful prejudices in men’s minds”

The above citation describes the philosophy that Venerable Walpola Rahula Thero embodied throughout his life. It was very much in line with the dictum Bahujana sukhaya bahujana hitaya or “for the happiness of the many, for the welfare of the many” and it was his guiding principle. His philosophy won him many friends and followers in Sri Lanka and internationally, and also some who disagreed with him. No doubt, if Buddha was alive today and graced the commemorative occasion, he would have readily agreed with Venerable Rahula.

In his book “The Heritage of the Bhikkhu” Ven Rahula gives a vivid account of a Buddhist monk’s role as a servant to people’s needs as a follower and teacher of the basic Buddhist principles. In this informative volume, Ven Rahula emphasizes Buddhism as a practical doctrine for daily living and spiritual perfection, not simply a monastic discipline

Over time, this truism that has been shaped into different forms by many actors within the Buddhist community, lay people as well as by Buddhist Monks. Buddhist culture has been distorted from being representative of the basic philosophy of what Buddha taught, to an institutionalised culture that has transformed the veneration and practice of the Dhamma to the veneration of institutional practices. The following statement by Venerable Rahula noted in the website of Tsemrinpoche.com perhaps underpins this transformation and why institutional Buddhism thrives (https://www.tsemrinpoche.com/tsem-tulku-rinpoche/buddhas-dharma/ven-dr-walpola-rahula-thero-the-theravadan-academic.html)

He says two ideas are psychologically deep rooted in man: self-protection and self-preservation, and for self-protection man has created God, on whom he depends for his own protection, safety and security, just as a child depends on its parents, and for self-preservation, conceived the idea of an immortal Soul or Atman, which will live eternally. In his ignorance, weakness, fear and desire, man needs these two things to console himself. Hence, he clings to them deeply and fanatically.

While there is no God or Atman in Buddhism, these two ideas psychologically deep rooted in man as mentioned by Ven Rahula, and fears arising from ignorance, weakness and desire, have very likely led to the solace for these promoted by institutional Buddhism as being adherence to cultural practices in the name of the Dhamma rather than the Dhamma itself and has perhaps functioned as the core foundation for the growth of the institutions.

Venerable Rahula’s philosophy was to practice and teach Dhamma rather than foster institutions that promoted cultural practices in the name of Buddhism, and he was a strong advocate of free thinking as the opening citation of this article clearly indicates. In this regard, the book ‘Sathyodaya’ written by Venerable Rahula epitomises his free thinking. Venerable Galkande Dhammananda in his introduction to ‘Sathyodaya’ says that free thinking is not an ability gained easily through habit. Proper direction and guidance is required to develop this skill.

Though the physical body can be easily trained to perform a task, he says that the same cannot be said about training the mind. He goes on to say that progressively cultivating human understanding and judgement through reasoning is a challenging task and that Venerable Rahula articulated how this may be done in many books he wrote, and his book ‘Sathyodaya’ or ‘Truth Awakening’ epitomised his approach to how Buddhists should practice Buddhism as Buddha taught (see ‘Sathyodaya’: Will the truth awaken in the New Year? https://www.ft.lk/columns/Sathyodaya-Will-the-truth-awaken-in-the-New-Year/4-676480). The fundamental wisdom that Ven Rahula promoted as Sathyodaya or “Truth Awakening” was the capacity of each person to be fully awakened, to become a Buddha in their own right, enlightened and wise. A key tool that can help people on the path is the notion of critical thinking, reasoning. Ven Rahula went onto say that “a person will not become a Buddhist by merely taking refuge in the triple gem through a verbal utterance. Nor will the person be a Buddhist by simply wearing a robe. A Buddhist is not defined by name or practice, but by conduct. In other words, if you are a good person, treat others with compassion and respect, and are wise and insightful in your actions, that is what makes you a “Buddhist”.

The following is a concise biography noted in the Walpola Rahula Institute website about Venerable Rahula (https://www.walpolarahula.institute/). This biography is a very good illustration of the philosophy of Venerable Walpola Rahula which he believed in and practiced throughout his life.

Venerable Professor Walpola Rahula was born on the 9th of May, 1907, in the village of Walpola, in southern Sri Lanka. In 1920, at the age of 13, he was ordained as a Buddhist monk. He received his initial monastic training under the Venerable Paragoda Sumanasara, a highly revered, erudite monk who strictly adhered to the monastic code of conduct. From this teacher Ven. Rahula received the complete training required for a monk, which included language skills and how to live a frugal life. He engaged in monastic practices such as meditation and pindapatha (‘begging for alms’). Other than the education by Ven. Sumanasara, until his admission to the University of London, Ven. Rahula did not seek nor receive any formal education.

In 1927, the 20-year-old Ven. Rahula was involved with the Colombo Dharmaduta Sabhava, a Buddhist missionary society. During this time, he worked with people oppressed by the caste system. He paid particular attention to teaching them the Dhamma, the Buddhist teaching while working towards their socio-economic upliftment. He and other program participants would regularly abstain from their meals and use the funds for the welfare of the underprivileged. During his sermons, Ven. Rahula regularly emphasised the importance of practising the Dhamma as originally taught by the Buddha and the importance of critical thinking and inquisitiveness. (These sermons were distributed as leaflets at the time. In 1992 they were published as a book under the title ‘Sathyodaya’). Ven Rahula’s critical approach gained him the respect and admiration of many lay and ordained Buddhists. However, it also attracted critics and opponents. Certain parties vehemently opposed his strong criticism of caste discrimination within the Buddhist clergy.

The next notable phase in Ven Rahula’s life was when he studied at the affiliated college of the University of London, in Colombo. In 1941 he graduated with an Honours Degree in Eastern Languages, becoming the first Buddhist monk from Sri Lanka to receive a university education. Even as a university student, he continued to help people in need of help. His service during the 1936 Malaria epidemic was recognised in the book “Buddhist Studies in Honor of Walpola Rahula” by E.F.C Ludvaik, a professor at the university at the time. Continuing research activities after his undergraduate degree, he earned a Doctorate from the University of Ceylon for his thesis “Some Aspects of the History of Buddhism in Ceylon”.

In the 1940s, when Sri Lanka was on the verge of gaining independence, Ven Rahula, along with other Buddhist monks like Ven. Yakkaduwe Sri Pannarama of the Vidyalankara Pirivena (An educational institute for Buddhist monks), Ven. Naththandiye Pannakara, Ven. Kotahene Pannakitti, Ven. Kalalelle Ananda Sagara took the position that the Buddhist monks had an active role in shaping the soon-to-be independent nation for the welfare of the masses. Ven. Rahula penned his seminal work ‘Bhikshuwage Urumaya‘ (The Heritage of the Buddhist Monk) to argue for the role of monks in ensuring the betterment of the masses.

For over three years, the discussion of the Free Education Act was stalled. Progressives such as Ven. Rahula and other Buddhist monks of the Vidyalankara Pirivena campaigned for its discussion and enactment in the State Council of Ceylon.

Through articles published in the ‘Kalaya’ (Time) newspaper and public awareness campaigns organised around the county by the ‘Eksath Bhikkhu Sangamaya’ (United Buddhist Monks’ Association), sufficient political pressure was generated for this Act to be discussed in the State Council and subsequently passed in 1947. Ven. Rahula and other monks of Vidyalankara Pirivena played a pivotal role in enabling free education in Sri Lanka, which has benefitted multiple generations and lifted the socio-economic situation of many.

In 1950, Ven. Rahula joined the Sorbonne University, Paris, as a Post Graduate Research Fellow under renowned Professor Paul Demiéville (1894-1979), where he carried out an annotated translation of 4th century Mahayana Bhikkhu Asanga’s ‘Abhidharma-Samuccaya’ to French. This was Ven. Rahula’s scholastic Magnus opus. It was also during this time Ven. Rahula wrote the book ‘What the Buddha Taught’, which would become the most widely read book on Buddhism in the Western world. During his time in France, Ven. Rahula acted as an ambassador of Buddhism, laying the foundation for Buddhist education in Europe.

Due to his fame and reputation as a scholar of Buddhism, in 1965, Ven. Rahula was invited to be the Professor of Religious History and Literature by the Northwestern University in the USA. While teaching at the Northwestern University, he also worked on streamlining the Buddhist study programs at other American Universities.

In 1966, the Sri Lankan Government invited Ven. Rahula to take up the position of Vice Chancellor of the Vidyodaya University (now University of Sri Jayawardanapura). As Vice-Chancellor, he worked purposefully to uplift the standards and prestige of the institution both nationally and internationally. University lecturers were sent to receive training overseas, and distinguished professors from foreign universities were invited to join the university. In 1969 he resigned from his post prematurely in protest of the political interferences to the university’s autonomy and returned to the USA. Back in the USA, he held professorships in several universities and was an advisor to postgraduate students at Oxford University, UK.

In the early 1980s, Ven. Rahula returned to Sri Lanka and was instrumental in establishing the “Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka” to enhance the education of Buddhist monks. In addition, Ven. Rahula founded the “Buddhist Study and Research Institute”, later renamed the “Walpola Rahula Institute” at Kotte. In 1980 a group of celebrated intellectuals honoured Ven. Rahula by compiling a book named “Buddhist Studies in Honour of Walpola Rahula”. The book was printed in London by the Gordon Fraser company. While Ven. Rahula was honoured by many prestigious universities around the world, he continued to be the Chancellor of the University of Kelaniya until his demise in 1997. Ven. Rahula passed away on the 18th of September 1997, having lived for 90 years. According to his will, his remains were cremated within 24 hours at the Borella crematorium following traditional Buddhist funeral rites, without pomp, pageantry, or speeches.

Walpola Rahula Thero wrote extensively about Theravada Buddhism. Apart from his world-renowned book What the Buddha Taught, he published an enormous number of papers on Buddhism. Notable books written by him include History of Buddhism in Ceylon, Heritage of the Bhikkhu, Zen and the Taming of the Bull and Le Compendium de la Super Doctrine (French). A complete list of his writings, in Sinhala, English and French are noted in the Walpola Rahula Institute’s website.

World Buddhist Sangha Council

In conclusion, Venerable Walpola Rahula’s contribution to the World Buddhist Sangha Council is noted here as one of his major achievements. The founder Secretary-General of the World Buddhist Sangha Council, Venerable Pandita Pimbure Sorata Thera had requested Venerable Rahula to present a concise statement to the first Congress of the Council in 1967 that would unify all of the different Buddhist traditions. It was through his knowledge of the Mahayana acquired while he was studying at the Sorbonne that Venerable Rahula was able to produce the important Buddhist Ecumenical statement called The Basic Points Unifying the Theravada and the Mahayana, (https://www.tsemrinpoche.com/tsem-tulku-rinpoche/buddhas-dharma/ven-dr-walpola-rahula-thero-the-theravadan-academic.html) which was unanimously approved by the Council. The ten points were

1. Whatever our sects, denominations or systems, as Buddhists we all accept the Buddha as our Master who gave us the Teaching.

2. We all take refuge in the Triple Jewel: the Buddha, our Teacher; the Dhamma, his teaching; and the Sangha, the Community of holy ones. In other words, we take refuge in the Teacher, the Teaching and the Taught.

3. Whether Theravada or Mahayana, we do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a god at his will.

4. Following the example of the Buddha, our Teacher, who is the embodiment of Great Compassion (mahakaruna) and Great Wisdom (mahaprajna), we consider that the purpose of life is to develop compassion for all living beings without discrimination and to work for their good, happiness and peace; and to develop wisdom leading to the realisation of Ultimate Truth.

5. We accept the Four Noble Truths taught by the Buddha, namely, Dukkha, the fact that our existence in this world is in predicament, is impermanent, imperfect, unsatisfactory, full of conflict; Samudaya, the fact that this state of affairs is due to our egoistic selfishness based on the false idea of self; Nirodha, the fact that there is definitely the possibility of deliverance, liberation, freedom from this predicament by the total eradication of the egoistic selfishness; and Magga, the fact that this liberation can be achieved through the Middle Path which is eight-fold, leading to the perfection of ethical conduct (sila), mental discipline (samadhi) and wisdom (panna).

6. We accept the universal law of cause and effect taught in the Paticcasamuppada (Skt. pratityasamutpada; Conditioned Genesis or Dependent Origination), and accordingly we accept that everything is relative, interdependent and interrelated and nothing is absolute, permanent and everlasting in this universe.

7. We understand, according to the teaching of the Buddha, that all conditioned things (samkhara) are impermanent (anicca) and imperfect and unsatisfactory (dukkha), and all conditioned and unconditioned things (dhamma) are without self (anatta).

8. We accept the Thirty-Seven Qualities conducive to Enlightenment (bodhipakkhiyadhamma) as different aspects of the Path taught by the Buddha leading to Enlightenment, namely:

= Four Forms of Presence of Mindfulness (Pali: satipatthana; Skt. smrtyupasthana);

= Four Right Efforts (Pali. sammappadhana; Skt. samyakpradhana);

= Four Bases of Supernatural Powers (Pali. iddhipada; Skt. rddhipada);

= Five Faculties (indriya: Pali. saddha, viriya, sati, samadhi, panna; Skt. sraddha, virya, smrti, samadhi, prajna);

= Five Powers (bala, same five qualities as above);

= Seven Factors of Enlightenment (Pali. bojjhanga; Skt. bodhyanga);

= Eight-Fold Noble Path (Pali. ariyamagga; Skt. aryamarga).

9. There are three ways of attaining Bodhi or Enlightenment according to the ability and capacity of each individual: namely, as a Sravaka (disciple), as a Pratyekabuddha (Individual Buddha) and as a Samyaksambuddha (Perfectly and Fully Enlightened Buddha). We accept it as the highest, noblest and most heroic to follow the career of a Bodhisattva and to become a Samyksambuddha in order to save others. But these three states are on the same Path, not on different paths. In fact, the Sandhinirmocana-sutra, a well-known important Mahayana sutra, clearly and emphatically says that those who follow the line of Sravakayana (Vehicle of Disciples) or the line of Pratyekabuddhayana (Vehicle of Individual Buddhas) or the line of Tathagatas (Mahayana) attain the supreme Nirvana by the same Path, and that for all of them there is only one Path of Purification (visuddhi-marga) and only one Purification (visuddhi) and no second one, and that they are not different paths and different purifications, and that Sravakayana and Mahayana constitute One Vehicle One Yana (ekayana) and not distinct and different vehicles or yanas.

10. We admit that in different countries there are differences with regard to the ways of life of Buddhist monks, popular Buddhist beliefs and practices, rites and rituals, ceremonies, customs and habits. These external forms and expressions should not be confused with the essential teachings of the Buddha.

In many aspects, Venerable Walpola Rahula was one of a kind. His simplicity, being a practitioner and not just a preacher, his scholarly knowledge of the Dhamma, his ability to have disseminated this knowledge to vast audiences locally and overseas, his adherence to Buddha’s message of service to others for the happiness of the many, and for the welfare of the many, and his steadfast belief and active promotion of mans right to free thinking.

In summing up who Venerable Walpola Rahula was, perhaps the words of Venerable Galkande Dhammananda would describe his lifelong dedication to the one key quality that functioned as one of his core value, freedom to think. “Proper direction and guidance is required to develop this skill. Though the physical body can be easily trained to perform a task, the same cannot be said about training the mind. Progressively cultivating human understanding and judgement through reasoning is a challenging task and Venerable Rahula articulated how this may be done in his teachings and in the many books he wrote“.

By Raj Gonsalkorale

All News Advertisement

Features

US-CHINA RIVALRY: Maintaining Sri Lanka’s autonomy

Published

41 mins ago

2025/12/19

Thilina Walpola

During a discussion at the Regional Center for Strategic Studies (RCSS) in Sri Lanka on 9 December, Dr. Neil DeVotta, Professor at Wake Forest University, North Carolina, USA commented on the “gravity of a geopolitical contest that has already reshaped global politics and will continue to mould the future. For Sri Lanka – positioned at the heart of the Indian Ocean, economically fragile, and diplomatically exposed- his analysis was neither distant nor abstract. It was a warning of the world taking shape around us” (Ceylon Today, December 14, 2025).

Sri Lanka is known for ignoring warnings as it did with the recent cyclone or security lapses in the past that resulted in terrorist attacks. Professor De Votta’s warning too would most likely be ignored considering the unshakable adherence to Non-Alignment held by past and present experts who have walked the halls of the Foreign Ministry, notwithstanding the global reshaping taking place around us almost daily. In contrast, Professor DeVotta “argued that nonalignment is largely a historical notion. Few countries today are truly non-aligned. Most States claiming neutrality are in practice economically or militarily dependent on one of the great powers. Sri Lanka provides a clear example while it pursues the rhetoric of non-alignment, its reliance on Chinese investments for infrastructure projects has effectively been aligned to Beijing. Non-alignment today is more about perceptions than reality. He stressed that smaller nations must carefully manage perceptions while negotiating real strategic dependencies to maintain flexibility in an increasingly polarised world.” (Ibid).

The latest twist to non-alignment is Balancing. Advocates of such policies are under the delusion that the parties who are being “Balanced” are not perceptive enough to realise that what is going on in reality is that they are being used. Furthermore, if as Professor DeVotta says, it is “more about perception than reality”, would not Balancing strain friendly relationships by its hypocrisy? Instead, the hope for a country like Sri Lanka whose significance of its Strategic Location outweighs its size and uniqueness, is to demonstrate by its acts and deeds that Sri Lanka is perceived globally as being Neutral without partiality to any major powers if it is to maintain its autonomy and ensure its security.

DECLARATION OF NEUTRALITY AS A POLICY

Neutrality as a Foreign Policy was first publicly announced by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa during his acceptance speech in the holy city of Anuradhapura and later during his inauguration of the 8th Parliament on January 3, 2020. Since then Sri Lanka’s Political Establishment has accepted Neutrality as its Foreign Policy judging from statements made by former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, Prime Minister Dinesh Gunawardena and Foreign Ministers up to the present when President Dissanayake declared during his maiden speech at the UN General Assembly and captured by the Head Line of Daily Mirror of October 1, 2025: “AKD’s neutral, not nonaligned, stance at UNGA”

The front page of the Daily FT (Oct.9, 2024) carries a report titled “Sri Lanka reaffirms neutral diplomacy” The report states: “The Cabinet Spokesman and Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath yesterday assured that Sri Lanka maintains balanced diplomatic relations with all countries, reaffirming its policy of friends of all and enemy of none”. Quoting the Foreign Minister, the report states: “There is no favouritism. We do not consider any country to be special. Whether it is big or small, Sri Lanka maintains diplomatic relations with all countries – China, India, the US, Russia, Cuba, or Vietnam. We have no bias in our approach, he said…”

NEUTRALITY in OPERATION

“Those who are unaware of the full scope and dynamics of the Foreign Policy of Neutrality perceive it as being too weak and lacking in substance to serve the interests of Sri Lanka. In contrast, those who are ardent advocates of Non-Alignment do not realize that its concepts are a collection of principles formulated and adopted only by a group of like-minded States to meet perceived challenges in the context of a bi-polar world. In the absence of such a world order the principles formulated have lost their relevance” (https://island.lk/relevance-of-a neutral-foreign-policy).

“On the other hand, ICRC Publication on Neutrality is recognized Internationally “The sources of the international law of neutrality are customary international law and, for certain questions, international treaties, in particular the Paris Declaration of 1856, the 1907 Hague Convention No. V respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, the 1907 Hague Convention No. XIII concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War, the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I of 1977 (June 2022)” (Ibid).

“A few Key issues addressed in this Publication are: “THE PRINCIPLE OF INVOILABILITY of a Neutral State and THE DUTIES OF NEUTRAL STATES.

“In the process of reaffirming the concept of Neutrality, Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath stated that the Policy of Neutrality would operate in practice in the following manner: “There is no favoritism. We do not consider any country to be special. Whether it is big or small, Sri Lanka maintains diplomatic relations with all countries – China, India, the US, Russia, Cuba or Vietnam. We have no bias in our approach” (The Daily FT, Oct, 9, 2024).

“Essential features of Neutrality, such as inviolability of territory and to be free of the hegemony of power blocks were conveyed by former Foreign Minister Ali Sabry at a forum in Singapore when he stated: “We have always been clear that we are not interested in being an ally of any of these camps. We will be an independent country and work with everyone, but there are conditions. Our land and sea will not be used to threaten anyone else’s security concerns. We will not allow military bases to be built here. We will not be a pawn in their game. We do not want geopolitical games playing out in our neighbourhood, and affecting us. We are very interested in de-escalating tensions. What we could do is have strategic autonomy, negotiate with everyone as sovereign equals, strategically use completion to our advantage” (the daily morning, July 17, 2024)

In addition to the concepts and expectations of a Neutral State cited above, “the Principle of Inviolability of territory and formal position taken by a State as an integral part of ‘Principles and Duties of a Neutral State’ which is not participating in an armed conflict or which does not want to become involved” enabled Sri Lanka not to get involved in the recent Military exchanges between India and Pakistan.

However, there is a strong possibility for the US–China Rivalry to manifest itself engulfing India as well regarding resources in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone. While China has already made attempts to conduct research activities in and around Sri Lanka, objections raised by India have caused Sri Lanka to adopt measures to curtail Chinese activities presumably for the present. The report that the US and India are interested in conducting hydrographic surveys is bound to revive Chinese interests. In the light of such developments it is best that Sri Lanka conveys well in advance that its Policy of Neutrality requires Sri Lanka to prevent Exploration or Exploitation within its Exclusive Economic Zone under the principle of the Inviolability of territory by any country.

Another sphere where Sri Lanka’s Policy of Neutrality would be compromised is associated with Infrastructure Development. Such developments are invariably associated with unsolicited offers such as the reported $3.5 Billion offer for a 200,000 Barrels a day Refinery at Hambantota. Such a Project would fortify its presence at Hambantota as part of its Belt and Road Initiative. Such offers if entertained would prompt other Global Powers to submit similar proposals for other locations. Permitting such developments on grounds of “Balancing” would encourage rivalry and seriously threaten Sri Lanka’s independence to exercise its autonomy over its national interests.

What Sri Lanka should explore instead, is to adopt a fresh approach to develop the Infrastructure it needs. This is to first identify the Infrastructure projects it needs, then formulate its broad scope and then call for Expressions of Interest globally and Finance it with Part of the Remittances that Sri Lanka receives annually from its own citizens. In fact, considering the unabated debt that Sri Lanka is in, it is time that Sri Lanka sets up a Development Fund specifically to implement Infrastructure Projects by syphoning part of the Foreign Remittances it receives annually from its citizens . Such an approach means that it would enable Sri Lanka to exercise its autonomy free of debt.

CONCLUSION

The adherents of Non-Alignment as Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy would not have been pleased to hear Dr. DeVotta argue that “non-alignment is largely a historical notion” during his presentation at the Regional Center for Strategic Studies in Colombo. What is encouraging though is that, despite such “historical notions”, the political establishment, starting with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and other Presidents, Prime Ministers and Ministers of Foreign Affairs extending up to President AKD at the UNGA and Foreign Affairs Minister, Vijitha Herath, have accepted and endorsed neutrality as its foreign policy. However, this lack of congruence between the experts, some of whom are associated with Government institutions, and the Political Establishment, is detrimental to Sri Lanka’s interests.

If as Professor DeVotta warns, the future Global Order would be fashioned by US – China Rivalry, Sri Lanka has to prepare itself if it is not to become a victim of this escalating Rivalry. Since this Rivalry would engulf India a well when it comes to Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEC), Sri Lanka should declare well in advance that no Exploration or Exploitation would be permitted within its EEC on the principle of inviolability of territory under provisions of Neutrality and the UN adoption of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace.

As a measure of preparedness serious consideration should be given to the recommendation cited above which is to set up a development fund by allocating part of the annual dollar remittances to finance Sri Lanka’s development without depending on foreign direct investments, export-driven strategies or the need to be flexible to negotiate dependencies; A strategy that is in keeping with Sri Lanka’s civilisational values of self-reliance. Judging from the unprecedented devastation recently experienced by Sri Lanka due to lack of preparedness and unheeded warnings, the lesson for the political establishment is to rely on the wisdom and relevance of Self-Reliance to equip Sri Lanka to face the consequences of the US–China rivalry.

by Neville Ladduwahetty ✍️

Features

1132nd RO Water purification plant opened at Mahinda MV, Kauduluwewa

Published

44 mins ago

2025/12/19

Thilina Walpola

Sponsors (senior management from M/S Perera and Sons), Principal and SLN officials at Opening of RO Plant

A project sponsored by Perera and Sons (P&S) Company and built by Sri Lanka Navy

Petroleum Terminals Ltd
Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation
Former High Commissioner to Pakistan

When the 1132nd RO plant built by the Navy with funds generously provided by M/S Perera and Sons, Sri Lanka’s iconic, century-old bakery and food service chain, established in 1902, known for its network of outlets, numbering 235, in Sri Lanka. This company, established in 1902 by Philanthropist K. A. Charles Perera, well known for their efforts to help the needy and humble people. Helping people gain access to drinking water is a project launched with the help of this esteemed company.

The opening of an RO plant

The Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) started spreading like a wildfire mainly in North Central, North Western and Eastern provinces. Medical experts are of the view that the main cause of the disease is the use of unsafe water for drinking and cooking. The map shows how the CKD is spreading in Sri Lanka.

School where 1132nd RO plants established by SLN

In 2015, when I was the Commander of the Navy, with our Research and Development Unit of SLN led by a brilliant Marine Engineer who with his expertise and innovative skills brought LTTE Sea Tigers Wing to their knees. The famous remote-controlled explosive-laden Arrow boats to fight LTTE SEA TIGER SUCIDE BOATS menace was his innovation!). Then Captain MCP Dissanayake (2015), came up with the idea of manufacturing low- cost Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Plants. The SLN Research and development team manufactured those plants at a cost of one-tenth of an imported plant.

The writer with his PSO’s daughter

Gaurawa Sasthrawedi Panditha Venerable Devahuwe Wimaladhamma TheroP/Saraswathi Devi Primary School, Ashokarama Maha Viharaya, Navanagara, Medirigiriya

The Navy established FIRST such plant at Kadawatha-Rambawa in Madawachiya Divisional Secretariat area, where the CKD patients were the highest. The Plant was opened on 09 December 2015, on the 65th Anniversary of SLN. It was an extremely proud achievement by SLN

Areas where the RO plants are located

First, the plants were sponsored by officers and sailors of the Sri Lanka Navy, from a Social Responsibility Fund established, with officers and sailors contributing Rs 30 each from their salaries every month. This money Rs 30 X 50,000 Naval personnel provided us sufficient funds to build one plant every month.

Observing great work done by SLN, then President Maithripala Sirisena established a Presidential Task Force on eradicating CKD and funding was no issue to the SLN. We developed a factory line at our R and D unit at Welisara and established RO plants at double-quick time. Various companies/ organisations and individuals also funded the project. Project has been on for the last ten years under six Navy Commanders after me, namely Admiral Travis Sinniah, Admiral Sirimevan Ranasinghe, Admiral Piyal de Silva, Admiral Nishantha Ulugetenna, Admiral Priyantha Perera and present Navy Commander Vice Admiral Kanchana Banagoda.

Each plant is capable of producing up to 10,000 litres of clean drinking water a day. This means a staggering 11.32 million litres of clean drinking water every day!

The map indicates the locations of these 1132 plants.

Well done, Navy!

On the occasion of its 75th Anniversary celebrations, which fell on 09 December 2025, the Navy received the biggest honour. Venerable Thero (Venerable Dewahuwe Wimalarathana Thero, Principal of Saraswathi Devi Primary Pirivena in Medirigiriya) who delivered the sermons during opening of 1132nd RO plant, said, “Ten years ago, out of 100 funerals I attended; more than 80 were of those who died of CKD! Today, thanks to the RO plants established by the Navy, including one at my temple also, hardly any death happens in our village due to CKD! Could there be a greater honour?

Features

Poltergeist of Universities Act

Published

44 mins ago

2025/12/19

Thilina Walpola

The Universities Act is back in the news – this time with the present government’s attempt to reform it through a proposed amendment (November 2025) presented by the Minister of Education, Higher Education and Vocational Education, Harini Amarasuriya, who herself is a former academic and trade unionist. The first reading of the proposed amendment has already taken place with little debate and without much attention either from the public or the university community. By all counts, the parliament and powers across political divisions seem nonchalant about the relative silence in which this amendment is making its way through the process, indicative of how low higher education has fallen among its stakeholders.

The Universities Act No. 16 of 1978 under which Sri Lankan universities are managed has generated debate, though not always loud, ever since its empowerment. Increasing politicisation of decision making in and about universities due to the deterioration of the conduct of the University Grants Commission (UGC) has been a central concern of those within the university system and without. This politicisation has been particularly acute in recent decades either as a direct result of some of the provisions in the Universities Act or the problematic interpretation of these. There has never been any doubt that the Act needs serious reform – if not a complete overhaul – to make universities more open, reflective, and productive spaces while also becoming the conscience of the nation rather than timid wastelands typified by the state of some universities and some programs.

But given the Minister’s background in what is often called progressive politics in Sri Lanka, why are many colleagues in the university system, including her own former colleagues and friends, so agitated by the present proposed amendment? The anxiety expressed by academics stem from two sources. The first concern is the presentation of the proposed amendment to parliament with no prior consultative process with academics or representative bodies on its content, and the possible urgency with which it will get pushed through parliament (if a second reading takes place as per the regular procedure) in the midst of a national crisis. The second is the content itself.

Appointment of Deans

Let me take the second point first. When it comes to the selection of deans, the existing Act states that a dean will be selected from among a faculty’s own who are heads of department. The provision was crafted this way based on the logic that a serving head of department would have administrative experience and connections that would help run a faculty in an efficient manner. Irrespective of how this worked in practice, the idea behind has merit.

By contrast, the proposed amendment suggests that a dean will be elected by the faculty from among its senior professors, professors, associate professors and senior lecturers (Grade I). In other words, a person no longer needs to be a head of department to be considered for election as a dean. While in a sense, this marks a more democratised approach to the selection, it also allows people lacking in experience to be elected by manoeuvring the electoral process within faculties.

In the existing Act, this appointment is made by the vice chancellor once a dean is elected by a given faculty. In the proposed amendment, this responsibility will shift to the university’s governing council. In the existing Act, if a dean is indisposed for a number of reasons, the vice chancellor can appoint an existing head of department to act for the necessary period of time, following on the logic outlined earlier. The new amendment would empower the vice chancellor to appoint another senior professor, professor, associate professor or senior lecturer (Grade I) from the concerned faculty in an acting capacity. Again, this appears to be a positive development.

Appointing Heads of Department

Under the current Act heads of department have been appointed from among professors, associate professors, senior lecturers or lecturers appointed by the Council upon the recommendation of the vice chancellor. The proposed amendment states the head of department should be a senior professor appointed by the Council upon the recommendation of the vice chancellor, and in the absence of a senior professor, other members of the department are to be considered. In the proposed scheme, a head of department can be removed by the Council. According to the existing Act, an acting head of department appointment can be made by the vice chancellor, while the proposed amendment shifts this responsibility to the Council, based upon the recommendation of the vice chancellor.

The amendment further states that no person should be appointed as the head of the same department for more than one term unless all other eligible people have already completed their responsibilities as heads of department. This is actually a positive development given that some individuals have managed to hang on to the head of department post for years, thereby depriving opportunities to other competent colleagues to serve in the post.

Process of amending the Universities Act

The question is, if some of the contents of the proposed amendment are positive developments, as they appear to be, why are academics anxious about its passing in parliament? This brings me to my first point, that is the way in which this amendment is being rushed through by the government. This has been clearly articulated by the Arts Faculty Teachers Association of University of Colombo. In a letter to the Minister of Education dated 9 December 2025, the Association makes two points, which have merit. First, “the bill has been drafted and tabled in Parliament for first reading without a consultative process with academics in state universities, who are this bill’s main stakeholders. We note that while the academic community may agree with its contents, the process is flawed because it is undemocratic and not transparent. There has not been adequate time for deliberation and discussion of details that may make the amendment stronger, especially in the face of the disaster situation of the country.”

Second, “AFTA’s membership also questions the urgency with which the bill is tabled in Parliament, and the subsequent unethical conduct of the UGC in requesting the postponement of dean selections and heads of department appointments in state universities in expectation of the bill’s passing in Parliament.”

These are serious concerns. No one would question the fact that the Universities Act needs to be amended. However, this must necessarily be based on a comprehensive review process. The haste to change only sections pertaining to the selection of deans and heads of department is strange, to say the least, and that too in the midst of dealing with the worst natural calamity the country has faced in living memory. To compound matters, the process also has been fast-tracked thereby compromising on the time made available to academics to make their views be known.

Similarly, the issuing of a letter by the UGC freezing all appointments of deans and heads of department, even though elections and other formalities have been carried out, is a telling instance of the government’s problematic haste and patently undemocratic process. Notably, this action comes from a government whose members, including the Education Minister herself, have stood steadfastly for sensible university reforms, before coming to power. The present process is manoeuvred in such a manner, that the proposed amendment would soon become law in the way the government requires, including all future appointments being made under this new law. Hence, the attempt to halt appointments, which were already in the pipeline, in the interim period.

It is evident that rather than undertake serious university sector reforms, the government is aiming to control universities and thereby their further politicization amenable to the present dispensation. The ostensible democratis0…..ation of the qualified pool of applicants for deanships opens up the possibilities for people lacking experience, but are proximate to the present powers that be, to hold influential positions within the university. The transfer of appointing powers to the Councils indicates the same trend. After all, Councils are partly made up of outsiders to the university, and such individuals, without exception, are political appointees. The likelihood of them adhering to the interests of the government would be very similar to the manner in which some vice chancellors appointed by the President of the country feel obligated to act.

All things considered, particularly the rushed and non-transparent process adopted thus far by the government does not show sincerity towards genuine and much needed university sector reforms. By contrast, it shows a crude intent to control universities at any cost. It is extremely regrettable that the universities in general have not taken a more proactive and principled position towards the content and the process of the proposed amendment. As I have said many times before, whatever ills that have befallen universities so far is the disastrous fallout of compromises of those within made for personal gain and greed, or the abject silence and disinterest of those within. These culprits have abandoned broader institutional development. This appears to be yet another instance of that sad process.

In this context, I have admiration for my former colleagues in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Colombo for having the ethical courage to indicate clearly the fault lines of the proposed amendment and the problems of its process. What they have asked is a postponement of the process giving them time to engage. In this context, it is indeed disappointing to see the needlessly conciliatory tone of the letter to the Education Minister by the Federation of University Teachers Association dated December 5, 2025, which sends the wrong signal.

If this government still believes it is a people’s government, the least it can do is give these academics time to engage with the proposed amendment. After all, many within the academic community helped bring the government to power. If not and if this amendment is rushed through parliament in needless haste, it will create a precedent that signals the way in which the government intends to do business in the future, abusing its parliamentary majority and denting its credibility for good.